Tyson Fury's record is laughable

[SlimTrae]

According to fast Eddie when compared to AJ's

https://www.skysports.com/boxing/new...-its-laughable

So what we saying. Who's got the better record?

I think language is important here. Record. A record, to me is pure data. Facts and figures. Under that criteria I think AJ has the better record. Better quality of opposition, sooner and in a shorter space of time.

Last ten fights. Just on paper a better list of fighters in Joshua's column for me.


If we look at their records on the whole, call it a resume if you like, it changes the picture for me a little. Fury has half a dozen or so fights on Joshua. Fury spent those half a dozen fights having up and downers with Steve Cunningham, Neven Pajkic. Going life and death with John McDermott. Ducking David Price to fight Martin Rogan for the Irish title. Fighting Vinny Maddalone at the Hand Arena around the corner from me.

Those experiences are important. They weren't exactly under the radar affairs, they would have been televised but compared to the scrutiny of every Joshua fight they were low key to say the least. Fury was considered a bit of a novelty with a great name and very much the poor relation to David price up until Price fell apart in 2013.

Those knocks, near misses and low key fights under the cover of obscurity, novelty and no where near the white heat of an AJ event have shaped Fury into what he has become. He truly knows who he is as a fighter and what he can and can't do. Joshua had no such luxury. From day one he was a star and under the microscope. No room for a dodgy points win at British level, no room for being dumped on your backside by a cruiserweight or no name Canadian, it just couldn't happen. In a way he's a victim of his own success. He's smashed his way to the top and then had to start thinking about it. He's learned his lessons and taken his lumps at the highest possible level. Fury covered some of that ground 8 years ago and it stands him in better stead in 2020.

On paper. AJ has the better 'record'. But on the whole there's an argument for Fury's way building a better more rounded fighter who is completely at one with himself, and what he is doing in the ring. I'm not convinced Joshua is in that place yet.

IMO AJ has the better record on paper, the better career overall. 2 years he snatched the commonwealth. Snatched four (0)s from his foes & snatched 3 belts in his 1st four years? That is credible!

While I am an avid supporter of Wilder fights, I can't base my standing to grade him, rather the board's standing is more objective. And that is Wilder sucks. Per this forum and all others, his balance is bad, his jab is barely average. His defense is porous, his resume is subpar or decent at best.

For fans to dog Wilder, then uplift him for Fury's sake IMO is hypocritical. I like Wilder because of that right hand its a mutha!!!

In other words Fury beat a one trick pony. Albeit it a helluva one hitter quitter one trick pony, nonetheless it does nothing that spruces up his resume.

As far as stating AJ knows who he is as a fighter and AJ doesn't -not sure I agree with that. IMO Ruiz 2 proved AJ knows who he is & his limitations to which is why he had no problems being called out for choosing to box the fat guy as opposed to taking the fight to him.

Previous to that, him getting off the canvas against Wlad is a rarety as well. He learned he could rise from the canvas, Even against Ruiz I, but the ref denied him the chance to go out on his shield.
I think Fury is a better boxer with a shitty resume. He also stands to beat AJ, but I wouldn't equate that to having a better career.

AJ's record is better, although Fury has 2 better names on his record.

Fury beating Wlad before AJ did, in his adopted country, whilst he was a dominant champion was more impressive than what AJ did against Wlad.

Fury beating Wilder twice when AJ was in a better position to unify is also another positive for Tyson Fury.

Fury has only himself to blame for wasting 3 years of his career due to mental health/drugs, depends on how you see it, and wondering in the wilderness. This allowed AJ to clean up most of the division and beat the better names.

I do disagree with you when you say AJ had to face the scrutiny that Fury did not and so may not have developed as he should have. I see AJ enjoying the fame, money and notoriety whilst developing his boxing skills and career.

....another thing i find interesting is that everyone gives Fury and AJ full credit for beating Vlad @ 40yrs, but no one gives M.Tyson credit for destroying a 38yr old Holmes. Holmes is considered by most to be the best HW champ of all time, along with Ali and Louis and at the time 1988 ,Holmes was basically undefeated with the exception of 2 questionable decision losses to M.Spinks....a

Good points.
On Tyson/Holmes Fury-Aj/Klit comparison: I'm guilty of such!

Neither AJ nor Fury going into the fight was seen as murderous punchers. Mike was.
Kiltschko wasn't coming off a 2 year retirement vs Fury, like Larry, who was- I think touring with his band?


I didn't give Mike credit then nor now and appreciate his post interview when he stated he beat Larry Holmes the Legend, not the fighter.
Fury was and still has detractors, so that made it all the more surreal that he beat Wlad....using Wlad's style. Did they even land 200 punches combined? IMO that fight would rate in my bottom 5 worst HW championship fights.


As far as AJ over Wlad? Good win for him. IMO it was Wlad's long rule that may have given many a reason to side with him over AJ, whereas Mike didn't rule for very long. It was brief, but menacing.